• TURMEL: Luc Paquette appeals equipment seizure after grow charge withdr

    From John KingofthePaupers Turmel@1:229/2 to All on Mon Nov 12 14:28:50 2018
    From: johnturmel@gmail.com

    TURMEL: Luc Paquette appeals equipment seizure after grow charge withdrawn

    JCT: Luc Paquette was charged with production and possession
    for the purpose of traffiking of marijuana and when he chose
    judge and jury, they droppped the production charge so he
    had to go below on possession.

    Since the grow equipment was not evidence of possession, he
    should have gotten it back but Judge Laflamme ruled that it
    should be seized.

    But it is only the first chance at getting his stuff back.
    There is also the appeal of the refusal to Quash the charge
    as no longer known to law and refusal to stay the charge as
    unconstitutional which get him back his stuff too. So a
    triple shot!

    CANADA
    PROVINCE OF QUEBEC QUEBEC COURT OF APPEAL
    DISTRICT OF GATINEAU (Criminal Chamber)
    LOCALITE: GATINEAU
    NO: 550-36-000006-187 Between
    NO: ________________ Appellant
    Luc Paquette
    -and-
    Attorney General for Quebec
    Respondent

    NOTICE OF APPEAL

    TAKE NOTICE that the Appellant appeals against the decisions
    of Cour du Quebec Judge Laflamme dated a) April 25 2018, b)
    July 30 2018, c) Oct 19 2918.

    APPELLANT ALSO SEEKS ANY ORDER abridging time for service or
    filing of the appeal, amending any error or omission, so
    that justice may be done.

    PARTICULARS OF JUDGMENTS:

    1. Trial was based on Admissions of the Accused.

    2. Place of judgment: Gatineau.

    3. Name of Judge: Cour du Quebec Judge Laflamme.

    4. Charge: S.5(2) the CDSA. S.7(1) withdrawn.

    5. Plea at trial: Mute. Not guilty entered.

    6. Upon Admissions of the facts, the Appellant was
    pronounced guilty and the production equipment was order
    confiscated.

    7. Appellant appeals against the decisions on:
    a) April 25 2018 summarily dismissing the Accused's pre-plea
    motion pursuant to S.601 of the Criminal Code to Quash the
    indictment as no longer known to law;
    b) July 30 2018 summarily dismissing the Accused's post-plea
    Charter challenge to the CDSA S.5(2) prohibition pursuant to
    his S.7 Charter Right to Liberty;
    c) Oct 19 2918 confiscating the plant-producing equipment
    for a Possession conviction after the S.7(1) Production
    charge had been withdrawn.

    THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL are that:

    a) a S.601 motion to Quash a count in an indictment is a
    question of law and though the arguments were not pertinent
    to the facts in play in the present case, the arguments were
    pertinent to the laws in the present case. If they were
    pertinent when R. v. J.P. heard the identical successful
    motion to Quash, they remain pertinent the same way now.

    b) The Applicant's medical condition may have precluded a
    claim on the Right to Life, it did not preclude a claim on
    the Right to Liberty. After J.P.'s charge was quashed in
    2003, the Crown dropped charges across Canada against 4,000
    Canadians whose medical condition had no bearing. Parker
    ruled Prohibition Invalid Absent Exemption! Hitzig ruled
    Exemption Absent. J.P. ruled "Prohibition Invalid Absent
    Exemption" and J.P. was a youth who was not even sick. The
    accused did not have to be sick in order to profit from the
    prohibition being invalid while the exemption was absent,
    they only had to be in penal jeopardy, as is the accused
    today. To say medical condition matters for the Accused when
    it did not matter for J.P. would seem inequitable treatment
    under the law.
    In R v. Mernagh, his Charter motion was granted for the lack
    of participation by doctors in the regime but found lacking
    one fact of evidence and overturned for not providing the
    non-medical reasons the doctors refused. Applicant herein
    did ascertain the non-medical reasons the doctors used to
    not participate and the Charter Motion should not have been
    summarily disallowed.

    c) The electrical equipment was evidence of production, not
    possession. When the production count was withdrawn, the
    evidence of production should be returned unlike requiring a
    S.24 Order for Return of the Controlled Substance.

    FOR THESE REASONS, MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT

    Should such motion be granted, accused seeks an Order:

    A) overturning the conviction;

    B) striking the word "marijuana" from CDSA Schedule II;

    C) expunging convictions registered since Aug 1 2001;

    D) returning the seized Controlled Substance to Appellant
    pursuant to S.24 of the CDSA, and, in the alternative, if the
    conviction for Possession is sustained,

    E) returning all evidence not related to the Possession
    offence of which Appellant was convicted.

    FOR THESE REASONS, MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT
    GRANT the present appeal.
    Dated at Gatineau on Oct Nov 7 2018.
    __________________________
    Luc Paquette
    TO: Ministry of Justice
    TO: The Registrar of the Court

    JCT: So we have an appeal with the two big issues,
    Interpretation Act says no revival, and Mernagh Plus Why
    says letting doctors opt out is unconstitutional.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)